Editorial: Coal-fired plant concerns

Dendron plant foes keep up the pressure on ODEC

August 01, 2011

The proposed coal-fired plant would surely bring much-needed jobs to the region. But at what cost?

From the outset, environmentalists recoiled at plans for a new coal-fired power plant in Surry County. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative first floated the plan in December 2008 and it has been met with a steady drumbeat of resistance, including a core of residents throughout Hampton Roads.

Outlying cities have been among the most vocal, Virginia Beach and Williamsburg both making clear their opposition. Surry County leaders, meanwhile, have taken the path of least resistance, looking to its potential for an economic bump in employment and tax revenue. And it's the same in Sussex County where ODEC is developing a back-up site. Estimates — and that's all they are — project that its building would create thousands of temporary jobs, its ongoing operation hundreds. Both have accorded the necessary zoning changes and conditional-use permits.

The need for more power generation isn't at issue, but the preferable method is. And it's not coal.

Traditionally the economic favorite, coal has lost some of its allure with the EPA's recently issued emissions rules. Dominion Resources Inc., building a new coal-fired plant in Wise County, has absorbed the lesson, this year announcing the conversion of three small coal-fired plants to biomass-burning, thereby bypassing the new standards; the company is also exploring offshore wind and alternative energy sources. Despite the newly heightened sensitivity to the use of nuclear power after the Japanese meltdowns this spring, expansion of Dominion's existing nuclear plants in Virginia remains the best option for meeting future energy needs

Last year, ODEC announced a delay of 18 months in pursuing the Cypress Creek Power Station. However, its opponents have not let up as ODEC continues to seek necessary permits from state and federal regulatory agencies. In April, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission allowed it to conduct water-siphoning tests in the James River.

Since then, the back-and-forth between the company and the plant's opponents has heated up. In May, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation issued a science-backed report spelling out some of the anticipated health costs, more than $205 million, associated with the proposed plant: These include increases in asthma problems, heart attacks and premature deaths. ODEC responded that such downsides would be "insignificant." That brought out Robert Burnley, director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality from 2002 to 2006, in outspoken opposition at an Isle of Wight County public hearing, where much of the opposition has been focused. (The county requested a third-party economic study that Surry rejected.)

According to Burnley, VDEQ outlined pages of "deficiencies" in ODEC's air quality permit applications related to toxic mercury emissions, smog-forming compounds and coal ash disposal, leading the company to withdraw those applications last fall. The company still uses those incomplete numbers to predict future impact, he says. In response, ODEC said the plant would meet federal standards and provide jobs.

The grounds for resistance are still valid. The 1,500 megawatt, $6 billion coal-fired power would be the largest in the state, adding more than 3,000 tons of ozone-forming chemicals to the atmosphere every year for 50 years or more. Air quality, already an issue in Hampton Roads — just last Friday the area was under a smog warning — would undoubtedly take a hit. Opponents are showing commendable tenacity in shadowing the company as it inches towards its goal.

While cognizant of the intense economic pressure faced by our area's unemployed, the coal-fired plant is a short-term jobs and energy panacea with long-term quality of life ramifications for the region.

There is an Isle of Wight public hearing on ODEC's proposed Surry coal-fired power plant at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the Smithfield Center, 220 N. Church St., Smithfield.